Pleadings cannot be amended to introduce subsequent events irrelevant to the real controversy.

The petitioners/defendants were contesting the opposite party’s suit for eviction of licensees, in which the plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit property under a registered deed of gift dated 29 March 2022 executed by Smriti Rekha Roy.

The defendants’ written statement disputed the plaintiff’s title and asserted an arrangement under which the property had allegedly been purchased for consideration contributed partly by petitioner no. 1, with the property being registered in Smriti Rekha Roy’s name subject to a subsequent transfer.

After the parties had adduced evidence and the suit had been fixed for arguments, the defendants sought amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

An earlier amendment application seeking incorporation of a counterclaim had been allowed by the Trial Court but was set aside by the High Court in C.O. No. 4290 of 2024 on 10 July 2025.

The Trial Court rejected the present amendment application by Order No. 42 dated 26 November 2025, leading to the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the proposed amendments to the written statement were necessary for determining the real controversy in the plaintiff’s suit for eviction of licensees.

2. Whether subsequent events, including the eviction notice and filing of Title Suit No. 721 of 2025, could be incorporated by amendment at the stage when the suit had reached the stage of arguments.

3. Whether the Trial Court’s refusal to permit the amendment warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Order VI Rule 17 CPC, under which an amendment of pleadings may be allowed when necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, subject to the statutory limitation applicable after commencement of trial.

Relying on Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84, and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 1, the Court held that necessity for adjudication of the real controversy is the primary condition for allowing an amendment.

The Court also recognised from Raj Kumar Bhatia v. Subhash Chandra Bhatia, (2018) 2 SCC 87, that the merits or ultimate success of the proposed case are ordinarily not to be examined at the amendment stage.

It accepted that subsequent events may be brought on record where they are necessary to decide the dispute, as discussed in Samir Ghosh v. Pratap Ghosh, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 10955, but distinguished State of West Bengal v. Pam Developments Pvt. Ltd., (2025) 3 SCC 356, as relating to subsequent events forming part of a continuous cause of action.

The Court further applied the principle that in a suit for eviction of a licensee, the plaintiff must establish title and, if the defendants fail to establish a competing title, eviction may follow on the basis of the plaintiff’s title.

The Court held that the proposed pleadings concerning the earlier suit, the eviction notice, and Title Suit No. 721 of 2025 had no bearing on the plaintiff’s title or on the cause of action in the present eviction suit.

The plaintiff was not a party to Title Suit No. 721 of 2025, and the notice issued by or on behalf of Smriti Rekha Roy, followed by that suit, could not affect the plaintiff’s independent claim based on the registered deed of gift in his favour.

The proposed assertion that Smriti Rekha Roy had no title after executing the gift deed was likewise irrelevant to the determination of the plaintiff’s title in the present suit.

The facts relating to the earlier suit were also either already admitted in the written statement or were not germane to the eviction dispute.

Since the amendments were not necessary for determining the real controversy and were sought after completion of evidence and at the stage of arguments, the Court found no error in the Trial Court’s refusal to exercise discretion under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

The civil revision application, C.O. No. 153 of 2026, was dismissed without any order as to costs.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the amendment application and that the Trial Court remained free to decide the suit in accordance with law.